Re: 169:6 - INVALID +1.75

From: Anton Cox (
Date: Thu Sep 27 2001 - 02:56:27 PDT

On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Gallivanting Tripper wrote:

> I disagree with the INVALID ruling but for different reasons to Anton.  I
> would also interpret "missing a turn" to mean not being able to "roll the
> dice" as required by claim 1, and that would mean that under certain
> circumstances a player required to miss a turn could not post a valid rule.

Since my rule was meant to be a bit of a trap I dont want to say too
much to give my plans away. But I will say that it was designed to
confuse people into thinking precisely the thoughts that GT outlines
above. Suffice it to say that I believe his analysis to be incorrect.

If the judge wants to know why, I will let him know privately. (Though
I would prefer not to; I might want to save my get-out for a later
rule, and dont like (for style reasons) to expose rules to judges
before they are posted to the FRC.)

Presumably both GT and the judge believe that I was unable to post a
valid rule immediately after the last one I posted? I have a rule in
mind that seems OK... :-)

Apologies to the judge for (trying, successfully I hope) to be so
devious so early.

     Best Wishes,


Rule Date: 2001-09-27 09:55:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST